Ray Hall

[peejay]

Originally posted by cairo tiger
ray hall has done something to someone at the club l cannot work it out i have called it a disgrace all along....but what the heck i am only a valued memeber

I know your type only to well, you bitch and moan about the club and the people there.

But as soon as someone questions you about it, you use your so called long time support as a badge of honour.

People like you are a dead set cancer to an organisation. You are a supporter like thousands of others and the correct weighting for your voice is one in many thousands. Either support the club or offer constructive and thought out advice, not schoolboy ranting and crying about how long you have been a supporter.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Originally posted by peejay
I know your type only to well, you bitch and moan about the club and the people there.

But as soon as someone questions you about it, you use your so called long time support as a badge of honour.

People like you are a dead set cancer to an organisation. You are a supporter like thousands of others and the correct weighting for your voice is one in many thousands. Either support the club or offer constructive and thought out advice, not schoolboy ranting and crying about how long you have been a supporter.

very well said peejay!
he would be the type to buy a memebership after a good year hoping the next be just as good.no wonder he,s frustrated

 

[Wally Matera]

Originally posted by peejay
I know your type only to well, you bitch and moan about the club and the people there.

But as soon as someone questions you about it, you use your so called long time support as a badge of honour.

People like you are a dead set cancer to an organisation. You are a supporter like thousands of others and the correct weighting for your voice is one in many thousands. Either support the club or offer constructive and thought out advice, not schoolboy ranting and crying about how long you have been a supporter.

Could not have said it better myself. Truely an honor to be in your company Peejay.

You've made us all proud!!!

Listen and learn Caro!

 

[froars]

Sorry but why don't you all listen to Caro, he's been the only one to tell us what's happening down at the club ....

Sucked in... only kidding lol.

 

[Pirate]

Right on, peejay!You hit the nail on the head. There are a lot of intelligent and reasonable people on this site, which I'm pleasantly surprised about.

I'm starting to realise that it might be better to just ignore what people like sphinxman and dirkdiggler say...aren't you/I just encouraging them to spout more ill-informed opinions (that they have every right to have, ofcourse) in response?

 

[Crumden]

FWIW, Miller was on 3AW on Monday night. He said Swans offered Amon Buchanan (later delisted) and a 4th round pick for Hall.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but 3 years down the track would this have been worth it? I suspect Buchanan has got more out of himself at Sydney than he would have at Richmond in the same period.

 

[Darth_Tiger]

hall is good insurance. big year for him this year.

 

[Crumden]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but 3 years down the track would this have been worth it? I suspect Buchanan has got more out of himself at Sydney than he would have at Richmond in the same period.

BTW Sydney's 4th round pick was used to redraft Buchanan and the best players taken after that pick were Tuck and Raines, so with hindsight it would probably have worked out similar to a straight swap of Hall for Buchanan.

 

[PLSC]

hall is good insurance. big year for him this year.

yeh insurance, CRAP insurance!

its a disgrace how 5 cm is the difference between kellaway getting shown the door and a dud in hall still hanging around

its bull****

 

[Fishfinger]

its a disgrace how 5 cm is the difference between kellaway getting shown the door and a dud in hall still hanging around

I don't think so.
Hall has a year to run on his contract. Kellaway's contract expired.

 

[Weaver]

I don't think so.
Hall has a year to run on his contract. Kellaway's contract expired.

+ Hall is 26, Kellaway is 31. Retiring both Kellaway and Gaspar in one season (at end of 2007) would have created more problems. Makes sense to stagger things.

I still think Kellaway had plenty to offer - but you can't whinge about the club not making tough decisions - and then also whinge when they make them.

 

[PLSC]

kellaway was a victim of the wallace ego, im harsh on the duds but andy kellaway was not one of them

ive moved on but hall and gaspar can go get ****ed

 

[Heisenberg_]

What a depressing thread, we could have had pick 19 for him FFS, now look at him

 

[santa claws]

+ Hall is 26, Kellaway is 31. Retiring both Kellaway and Gaspar in one season (at end of 2007) would have created more problems. Makes sense to stagger things.

I still think Kellaway had plenty to offer - but you can't whinge about the club not making tough decisions - and then also whinge when they make them.

all of gaspar hall and kellaway should be gone. but one simple reason has prevented this recruiting.
i would have liked to go back to 02 millers first yr in charge of a draft but dont have the info so 03 will have to do.i can say though the only tall we drafted in 02 was schulz. so i would say its safe to say the no of talls on the list would not have varied much from 03.

the real problem lies in the fact that at the start of 03 we had just nine genuine talls on the list. 9 can you believe it. 2 ruckmen ottens, and stafford.and kpp richo. gaspar. hall. holland.kellaway schulz and vardy. all of gaspar hall holland kellaway and vardy had serious deficiencies in their games. this left just 2 ruckmen and 2 kpp on the list up to afl standard.

at the start of 2004 we added archibald pick 81. ben marsh with our 1st preseason pick no 4 overall shane morrison pick 64 sheesh he managed 5 games in 5 yrs at brisbane. and luke weller 2nd rnd pick preseason draft no 11 overall. jeez miller was really fixing our tall problems by getting quality to the club.

this yr we delisted vardy and traded the dinosaur holland. so at the start of 04 we had 11 talls on the list most of whom were duds god help us also if injuries hit the talls which inevitably they did.it seems miller was more interested in getting big name players than addressing list deficiencies.

at the start of 05 we added talls in mark graham pick 65. knobel preseason pick 1. limbach pick 52. mcguane pick 36. pattison pick 16. and troy simmonds in a trade. i think even wallace realised you needed more than 11 talls on the list.
the telling thing about this group was we had 5 picks inside the top 20 and utilised just 1. on pattison at pick 16 and what a speculator that pick was.i think the club was still in denial about the quality of the talls on our list.

we also delisted kellaway marsh weller and traded ottens so in effect this brought the number of talls on the list up to 13. not nearly enough and with just 2 first round selections amongst the lot not enough quality either.

its these drafts that are biting us on the arse now if we had of got some quality talls in the system 02 to 05 we would not be having to put up with duds like hall and gaspar we wouldnt be down trading picks to get polak we would not have had to give graham a one yr contract and we would not be pinning our hopes on types like kingsley. under miller our list management has been bad our tall management has been abysmal.

finally of the 13 talls on the list today that includes pat bowden who is a tall flanker how many can you safely say will be around in 3 yrs time.its scary if you take your biased hat of.

 

[Paddles]

imagine adding little buchanan into our midfield, on ball, small fwd mix. he is a ripper!

hindsight, tho, is an exact science!

 

[PLSC]

santa give yourself a beer

 

[Fishfinger]

Greg Beck was our recruiting manager up to the 2004 draft. Danny Frawley was our coach until the end of the 2004 season. They did our drafting.
Greg Miller would have had a say but it wasn't his job. He took over drafting after the 2004 draft.

He was with the Hammerheads in 2002. He came to Richmond after that and probably just before the drafts. I think our recruiting would have been pretty much mapped out by then.

Santa Claws, you seem to be trying to convince us you'd be better at recruiting than GM. No doubt our recruiting was pretty ordinary for a lot of years. You still haven't nearly convinced me though.

Why don't you expand on the years you've covered?
By that, I mean tell us how you would have managed draft rules, list rules, trades you would have brokered and how you would have brokered them, how you would have dealt with the lack of cash to draft certain players, how you would have prioritised given the cattle we had at the time of each of those drafts.

Either that or you could just stick to your simplistic re-hash and bagging of the drafting done with a few of your subjective opinions about players thrown in as if they're facts.

 

[Weaver]

all of gaspar hall and kellaway should be gone. but one simple reason has prevented this recruiting.

...

its these drafts that are biting us on the arse now if we had of got some quality talls in the system 02 to 05 we would not be having to put up with duds like hall and gaspar we wouldnt be down trading picks to get polak we would not have had to give graham a one yr contract and we would not be pinning our hopes on types like kingsley. under miller our list management has been bad our tall management has been abysmal.

2002

I agree that we have a lack of quality talls. Whether 13 is the right number or not is debatable. 2 up forward, 3 down back, 2 in the ruck = 7. One spare for each = 14. With short lists it is hard to carry too many more.

I have argued for a decade for us to use the rookie list and always have a ruckman on it.

It is not the drafts between 02-05 that are costing us. Those guys simply aren't ready quite yet (Schulz, Reiwoldt, Thursfield, McGuane, Pattison, Hughes + trades for Polak and Simmonds). We are addressing the talls problem. The problem is from earlier though.

However it isn't quite right to imagine that their are dozens of young big blokes available. That the junior ranks are bursting with quality talls.

Just because you want to draft a tall ... doesn't mean they exist.

Plenty are quick to criticise our selection of Schulz ... but that draft went Goddard, Wells, J.Brennan, Walsh, McVeigh, Salopek, Mackie, L. Brennan, McIntosh, Laycock, Winderlich, Schulz. Perhaps Jarred Brennan is a better tall option ... but he is hardly consistent or established either.

Schulz was pick 13. The next 3 talls taken were Nick Smith, Steve Gilham and Kris Shore.

Schulz finally delivers on his talent and we could still have the best tall out of that draft.

2003

2003 we should have drafted a good young tall who would be established in the team? Which one?

(if we hadn't traded for Brown)
6. K.Bradley
12. R.Murphy
14. F.Watts
15. T.Chaplin
17. B.Morrison
18. L.Spaanderman
19. D.Mundy (yes please)

(if we DID trade for Brown we could have had)
24. C.Jones
27. A.Campbell
35. B.Hall
41. Z.Dawson
42. M.Spencer
46. M.Pettigrew
47. A.Ericksen
50. I.Thompson
57. R.Mott
58. B.Hudson
64. S.Morrison
71. A.DeLuca

Instead of getting involved in that rush for quality talls we took Hartigan, Tuck, Raines instead. We should have taken a tall late apparantly, for list balance? Morrison was just as rubbish as the rest of them.

2004
We got Simmonds, Pattison, McGuane, Limbach .. too early to tell.
2005
We got Hughes, Thursfield
2006
We got Reiwoldt, Polak

In three drafts that is a serious attempt to get some good tall timber.

 

[lids2004roar]

I LOL's about this comment regarding Sydney:

Their entire team is built out of Ray Halls.

 

[Weaver]

Greg Beck was our recruiting manager up to the 2004 draft. Danny Frawley was our coach until the end of the 2004 season. They did our drafting.
Greg Miller would have had a say but it wasn't his job. He took over drafting after the 2004 draft.

Anyone who knew junior footy, and knew the draft, would have seen an instant and enormous change at Richmond in the 03-04 off season.

In 00 - Pettifer, Coughlan, Hyde, Krakouer, Newman, Sziller, Haynes, Vardy
(a single season attempt to recruit a midfield at the expense of all else)

In 01 - Rodan, Houlihan, Hyde, McGrath, Hudson, Stafford
(a coaching staff driven attempt to find small forward to kick goals to win us finals)

In 02 - Johnson, Schulz, Fleming, Nicholls, Sipthorp, Blumfield
(an attempt to emulate Brisbane by getting big and tough).


All those three years were bloody theme-park drafts. The club changed strategy every year, and in Frawley there was a moron in charge. You don't let a coach recruit - or tell you what to recruit. All coaches want instant success. In 2001 when we drafted small forwards for Frawley we forfeited the future of the club.

In 2003 under Miller there was an immediate change. We were going to get tall, fast and skillful. There would be no room for variation unless we had a gap to plug.

03 - Brown, Gilmour, Roach, Jackson, Hartigan, Raines, Tuck, Morrison, Fletcher, Archibald, Marsh, Weller

(a few late-round Frawley-style big-bodied duds to keep him quiet in his last year. But pace is the message)

04 - Deledio, Tambling, Meyer, Polo, McGuane, Limbach, Pattison, Graham

05- Oakley-Nicholls, Casserley, Bowden, White, Thursfield, Foley, Knobel,

06 - Edwards, Peterson, Collins, Reiwoldt, Connors, Kingsley, Polak

Throw in the likes of Pattison, Simmonds, Thursfield, McGuane, Hughes who are quick and mobile by the standards of their position and a clear plan has emerged under Miller.

Tall, fast, skillful running midfielders. Lighter-smaller mobile KP players who can handle the ball and contribute to the running game.

4 years commited to the one plan. Now you never thought you'd see that at Richmond did you? Finally start to get into a position to capitalise on that hard work and plenty on here want to go back to the Frawley approach of flailing about for different players every other year.

 

[Weaver]

I LOL's about this comment regarding Sydney:

Their entire team is built out of Ray Halls.

At Sydney his semi-backman, semi-defender, semi-ruckman role is very very crowded. He won't get a game in defence ahead of Bolton, Schauble and Saddington. He won't get a game up forward ahead of Hall, Davis, O'Loughlin, Roberts-Thomson, Sundqvist, Ablett and O'Keefe. He will behind Goodes, Ball, Doyle and Meiklejohn in the ruck queue. That is even before the likes of Nicks, Powell, James, Kennelly, Fosdike, Dempster or Malceski are taken into account. Their entire team is built out of Ray Halls.

Good call even if I say so myself. Hall to Sydney would have been a bad career move and he wouldn't have gotten a game.

Swans showed something that people on here are reluctant to consider. You can win a team with very few traditional talls. BBB Hall up front is an old-style big man. Goodes is more ruck-rover. Kenneally, O'Loughlin, O'Keefe, C. Bolton, Barry are all flanker/wingmen types more than true big men. Richards, Roberts-Thompson, Doyle, Jolly are hardly tier-one talent.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

With posts #43 and #45, Weaver once again adds the needed logic and rationality to the debate.

Good stuff, mate.

 

[PLSC]

Good call even if I say so myself. Hall to Sydney would have been a bad career move and he wouldn't have gotten a game.

Swans showed something that people on here are reluctant to consider. You can win a team with very few traditional talls. BBB Hall up front is an old-style big man. Goodes is more ruck-rover. Kenneally, O'Loughlin, O'Keefe, C. Bolton, Barry are all flanker/wingmen types more than true big men. Richards, Roberts-Thompson, Doyle, Jolly are hardly tier-one talent.

sydney won the premiership because of barry hall

eagles although hard to fathom won because of quenton lynch

cox smashed sydney's rucks stock on his own

glass molested hall

hansen ran rings around sydney's defensive 50

hunter is still the most underrated player in the comp

for all the drooling over judd and goodes and kerr and cousins kpp will always prove the difference imo

 

[santa claws]

Anyone who knew junior footy, and knew the draft, would have seen an instant and enormous change at Richmond in the 03-04 off season.

In 00 - Pettifer, Coughlan, Hyde, Krakouer, Newman, Sziller, Haynes, Vardy
(a single season attempt to recruit a midfield at the expense of all else)

In 01 - Rodan, Houlihan, Hyde, McGrath, Hudson, Stafford
(a coaching staff driven attempt to find small forward to kick goals to win us finals)

In 02 - Johnson, Schulz, Fleming, Nicholls, Sipthorp, Blumfield
(an attempt to emulate Brisbane by getting big and tough).


All those three years were bloody theme-park drafts. The club changed strategy every year, and in Frawley there was a moron in charge. You don't let a coach recruit - or tell you what to recruit. All coaches want instant success. In 2001 when we drafted small forwards for Frawley we forfeited the future of the club.

In 2003 under Miller there was an immediate change. We were going to get tall, fast and skillful. There would be no room for variation unless we had a gap to plug.

03 - Brown, Gilmour, Roach, Jackson, Hartigan, Raines, Tuck, Morrison, Fletcher, Archibald, Marsh, Weller

(a few late-round Frawley-style big-bodied duds to keep him quiet in his last year. But pace is the message)

04 - Deledio, Tambling, Meyer, Polo, McGuane, Limbach, Pattison, Graham

05- Oakley-Nicholls, Casserley, Bowden, White, Thursfield, Foley, Knobel,

06 - Edwards, Peterson, Collins, Reiwoldt, Connors, Kingsley, Polak

Throw in the likes of Pattison, Simmonds, Thursfield, McGuane, Hughes who are quick and mobile by the standards of their position and a clear plan has emerged under Miller.

Tall, fast, skillful running midfielders. Lighter-smaller mobile KP players who can handle the ball and contribute to the running game.

4 years commited to the one plan. Now you never thought you'd see that at Richmond did you? Finally start to get into a position to capitalise on that hard work and plenty on here want to go back to the Frawley approach of flailing about for different players every other year.

thats a very nice spin on things weaver. let me say i think 15 or 16 is the right number of talls.
if you are trying to tell me miller had nothing to do with getting johnson and schulz and had no say in this draft you are sadly mistaken.
i dont see any skilful tall fast running midfielders or kp players of your description in this draft or in 03, the fact is if schulz doesnt make the grade only johnson will still be on the list from 02.
anyway 02 aside miller in 03 traded away our early picks when we clearly had the worst list in the comp.in this draft he took 4 talls as after thoughts. most people who had a skerrick of an idea would have had grave doubts about marsh archibald weller and morrison hack everyone of them and not one left on the list .gilmore roach jackson hartigan raines tuck and fletcher were the so called tall speedy skilful types drafted already 4 of this group of seven are gone and 2 others are looking very shaky in hartigan and jackson. jeez it seems since wallace has been at the club hes spent half his time delisting miller recruits.

04 the yr wallace comes and you can see a definate change in the way we go about it. with an emphasis on keeping our early picks and fast and skilful players. all of deledio who has size as well, tambling meyer and polo have pace and skill with the exception of polo his kicking left a lot to be desired and it was thought he would go later in the draft because of this.
talls taken. pattison at 16 was a shock pace and kicking the biggest of many concerns. limbach who has been delisted mcguane jurys out and graham who was taken for one yr because of the dearth of kpd.one very good get was simmonds. how good we did this draft is yet to be determined but with 5 top 20 picks we want to hope its a good one. once again i will say this draft was disappointing for some because of the lack of early picks on talls.and the failure to take ball winning inside types with skill.i could go on but it becomes a bit repetitive i will end by saying the plan since 04 is not millers but wallaces and i think we have got it arse about by targeting mids in front of kpp.

 

[Crumden]

eagles although hard to fathom won because of quenton lynch

cox smashed sydney's rucks stock on his own

glass molested hall

hansen ran rings around sydney's defensive 50

hunter is still the most underrated player in the comp

for all the drooling over judd and goodes and kerr and cousins kpp will always prove the difference imo

Glass was the only one of those taken with a first round pick (pick 11). Hunter was a 2nd rounder (29), Hansen in the 3rd round (38) and Lynch and Cox were rookie listed. Talent identification and having enough dough to use the rookie list properly are just as importmant (and maybe moreso) than get early picks at the talls.

Even if we recruited 10 talls in the last couple of drafts, that isn't going to solve the problem of no good 23-25 year old talls. Instead, it will just create the same problem in reverse a few years down the track.

What Miller and Wallace have tried to do (and I'm not sure how much of the credit (or blame) should go to Miller and how much to Wallace) is to take a balanced approach each year so that in the long term we will have a balanced list. Everyone agrees that our previous recruiting was crap. But instead of trying to fill gaps all over the place on the list, they have taken the approach to a long term rebuild. Given that there is about a five year lag between when a player is recruited and when they really start to earn their keep (with a few exceptions), it means it will really take closer to 10 years than 5 to fully rebuild the list. That's not to say that we won't or can't play finals consistently beforehand and maybe even get a chance to steal a flag. Its just that that is the state the list was left in.

Wallace has also made it clear that he will look at 1 or 2 recycled players a year if he thinks he can get them for a bargain. I may not agree with all the choices, but the strategy gives us a bit of depth so that we don't have to play too many youngster that are obviously not ready.